IF the figures quoted are correct (or even remotely true) then, to be quite honest, it is unsurprising that we are where we are. If the reps stand to earn £100+ per day from the Union then it is obvious that LM, DH et al would find more reason to do Union work than BA work. Working for BASSA literally pays them NOT TO FLY. It explains why so many of the reps were off "sick" - no real reason to fly. There are only a few trips that would earn this kind of money, so no incentive to do the "real job".
This topic has therefore probably shown one of the huge flaws in all of this: the reps may have started out with the members' interests at heart, but with such ease and capability to line their own pockets, who's to say they attended plenty of meetings, not out of true concern for the members, but merely because it was financially beneficial to do so? And who can blame them, they are after all, only human?
Contrast this with the PCCC who are working tirelessly and entirely in their own time; who have not charged anyone a penny yet, and who are endeavouring to find a better way forward for the cabin crew and for our company. Surely this is the true essence of a "union"? Surely this is what representatives are supposed to do - unreservedly, and unfalteringly try to achieve the best deal for the community, without any outside interests or financial gain?
It's a clear Conflict of Interest, and it should have been the first Agenda item of every meeting. Anyone who stood to gain more from being there than on aeroplane, essentially had a conflict of interest.
It also explains why many have lost sight of their real job; the reps obviously feel more loyalty to Unite, due to the financial rewards, than BA. That is clearly wrong.
Whatever the outcome one thing is clear: working for a union (whether that is PCCC, BASSA or Amicus) should NOT be more financially beneficial than working for BA.
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
Last edited by HiFlyer14; 7th Nov 2010 at 18:33.